Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri. Kalidindi Rama Krishna Raju vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 30 December, 2025
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
1
APHC010813432018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3209]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,, THE T
TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No: 40529 of 2018
Between:
1. SRI. KALIDINDI RAMA KRISHNA RAJU, S/O LATE SRI.
KALIDINDI SUBBARAJU, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. RETD CAO,
CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD, R/O. H. NO. 2 2-4-1033/5,
FLAT NO. 201, PLOT NO. 1, ROAD NO. 1, ROYAL
RESIDENCY APARTMENT, NEW SAMATHAP
SAMATHAPURIURI COLONY,
NAGOLE, R.R. DISTRICT, HYDERABAD - 500102.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
AMARAVATHI, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. THE SUBCOLLECTOR, PADERU, VISKHAPATNAM
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
4. THE PROJECT OFFICER, INTEGRATED TRIBAL
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (ITDA), PADERU,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
5. THE TAHSILDAR, ARAKU VALLY TOWNSHIP, ARAKU
VALLEY MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
2
6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PEDALABUDU GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, ARAKU VALLEY TOWNSHIP,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Mr.P V RAJENDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP)
2. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP) 3 The Court made the following Order:
The present writ petition is filed for a direction to the respondents 1 to 6 to deliver the vacant peaceful and physical possession of two house site plots Nos.A-54(admeasuring 2000 sq.yards) and A-55 (admeasuring 1917 sq.yards) (changed numbers A-52 & A-53) in the Lay-Out of Araku Valley Township, Araku Valley Mandal, Visakhapatnam, purportedly identified by the licensed Surveyor No.16, during survey in the presence of respondents 3 and 5 and to declare the inaction in delivering the possession of the said plots in spite of said Surveyor's report dated 22.12.2017 and receipt of cost of the land, receipt of arrears of tax from 1955 till 1976 as illegal, arbitrary etc.
2. The facts of the case as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, may be briefly stated as follows:
The petitioner is the sole legal heir and successor of one Mr.(late) P.Satyanarayana Raju and Smt.(late) K.Rajeswari. Mr. P.Satyanarayana Raju, maternal grandfather of the petitioner died intestate on 06.03.1980 and his mother Smt.Bhimeswari died intestate on 28.05.1997. During their life time, they purchased house sites/plot Nos.A-54 and A-55 (changed numbers A-52 & A-53) from the then Government in the layout formed by the Government of Madras from and out of the plots exclusively allotted to the private 4 individuals of non-Tribals on payment of prescribed sale consideration to the then Government in Araku Valley Township, presently situated in Paderu Revenue Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh. The then Special Deputy Tahsildar, Araku Valley Township issued patta allotment letters dated 10.09.1955 and called upon them to pay Rs.130/- each towards cost of site, amenities and cost of survey stones. The said amount was duly paid and by letter dated 08.08.1958, they were informed that due to re-demarcation of the entire Araku Valley Township, Plot No.A-55 is reduced to 1917 Sq.yards from 2000 Sq.yards and therefore, the excess payment of amount would be refunded. Subsequently, the grandfather and mother of the petitioner submitted duly signed agreements along with the building plans for constructions of houses on the said plots through Registered Post dated 25.08.1958 to the then Block Development Officer, Araku Valley. But there was no response from the authorities.
3. Further, the petitioner's grandfather constructed thatched houses in the said two house sites, lived for a short period and thereafter due to old age ailments, they moved to Vizag. The petitioner had no occasion to stay in the said houses due to his education. The petitioner's grandfather died on 06.03.1980 and mother on 28.05.1997, leaving the petitioner as their legal heir and 5 successor of the said plots, but due to his employment in the Judicial Service in the City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, he could not identify the plots and submitted representations to the authorities for handing over possession of the house sites. Considering one of such representations, dt.16.11.2017, the 5th respondent issued an Endorsement(Ex.P13) expressing inability/helplessness with regard to the grievance of the petitioner as several changes took place in Araku Valley Township in the past 55 years. However, subsequently, the 3rd respondent, vide proceedings dated 14.12.2017, directed the 5th respondent to conduct a discrete enquiry and to submit a report with regard to the petitioner's representations. In the light of the said proceedings, the Tahsildar/5th respondent called upon the petitioner to attend enquiry on 22.12.2017 and the Surveyor No.16, Araku Valley Mandal, after conducting a survey, submitted a report by referring to the petitioner's representation about the payment dt.10.09.1955 made by the petitioner's maternal grandfather and mother, but on physical inspection of plots shown by the petitioner, the plots are in possession of I.T.D.A.Tribal Museum and under construction. In the light of the said report, the petitioner made a detailed representation dated 19.01.2018 to the 4th respondent, requesting him to handover the said house sites, while stating that he is entitled for compensation for utilizing the said house sites by constructing a Tribal Museum. 6
4. Thereafter, the petitioner made another representation dated 24.02.2018 (Ex.P21) to the 3rd respondent, attended a Grama Sabha on 20.04.2018 and as nothing is forthcoming despite the communication dated 26.04.2018 that an opinion is sought for, got issued a legal notice dated 04.06.2018 to the respondent authorities. In response to the said representations and notice, the 3rd respondent addressed a detailed communication dated 20.07.2018 to the 2nd respondent marking a copy to the petitioner's counsel wherein it was inter alia stated that the request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to, as the layout in Araku Valley Township was drawn prior to introduction of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 and it is not possible to allot even a needle point of land to non-tribal in the agency track, more particularly the applicant (petitioner) failed to pay the amount, execute the documents and take possession of the land.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the material filed along with the writ petition, made submissions to impress upon the Court that the petitioners' grandfather paid the requisite amount towards cost of the plots / sites and also made an application for construction by enclosing necessary documents which is evident from Ex.P.4 dated 22.10.1973 and Ex.P.8 dated 14.04.1976. He refers to Ex.P2 allotment letters of the 7 Spl.Dy.Tahsildar, Araku Valley and agreements Ex.P3. However, this Court notices that there is no specific reference to the names of the petitioners' paternal grandfather or his mother and the relevant columns are kept blank, but Ex.P4 refers to the execution of the agreements and submission of plans. Though Ex.P.8 dated 14.04.1976 gives an indication that they are waiting for approval of plans by the Director of Town Planning, Hyderabad, either the petitioners' grandfather or his mother appears to have not made any efforts to secure permission from the Director of Town Planning. They have not invoked the remedies available to them under law, when the agreements stated to have been executed in their favour imposes a condition that within a period of 24 months from the date of communication of approval of the building plan by the Director of Town Planning, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the construction has to be completed (see condition No.4), for the reasons best known to them. Even the petitioner who claims that he is not aware of the subject matter plots till the death of his mother (on 28.05.1997) has not offered any explanation as to why it took 10 years time to make a representation in the year 2007 and kept quiet thereafter, till 2017. Even, the learned counsel for the petitioner admits that though no such approval was received during the life time of the petitioners' grandfather or mother, except making some oral representations, no 8 legal action is taken. It is only the petitioner who started correspondence with the concerned officers in the year 2007 and filed the present writ petition after receipt of the report of the Licensed Surveyor dated 22.12.2017, on the premise that the petitioner has no other alternative remedy.
6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader on the basis of the counter-affidavit filed by the 5th respondent submits that the grievance of the petitioner was comprehensively examined and the 3rd respondent after referring to various factual aspects, through proceedings dated 20.07.2018 reported that the petitioner's representation cannot be accepted and a copy of the same was communicated to the petitioner's counsel. He further submits that, as mentioned in the said proceedings, from 1990 onwards, the Government of A.P., has undertaken extensive developmental activities in Araku Valley, constructed the permanent Government Buildings such as the Tahsildar's Office, Collector's Camp Office, APSRTC Bus Station, resorts by A.P.Tourism Department and Tribal Museum etc., that in view of the Act 1 of 1970 and other agency laws, the land cannot be alienated to non-tribals. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner submitted a representation after a lapse of more than 60 years, even assuming without admitting that certain rights had accrued to the petitioner through his grandfather and 9 mother. He submits that, in the meanwhile, various developmental activities including infrastructure facilities, such as laying of roads, construction of buildings by Government Departments like Velugu, Girijana Bhavan, BSNL towers etc., have come up in the area, and therefore, it is not feasible to make any individual allotments, much less identification of subject matter plots. Further that as the petitioner is not in the possession of the property, let alone his grandfather or mother, he cannot claim any right over the property after more than six (6) decades. If at all, the petitioner has to seek other remedies available in law by establishing his right or title over the schedule property. He also contends that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the petitioner has not challenged the proceedings dated 20.07.2018.
7. On an appreciation of the submissions made and perusal of the material on record, at the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that except the affidavit of the petitioner that he is the sole legal heir and surviving successor of his grandfather and mother, no declaration/succession certificate issued by the competent Court is filed along with writ petition. In the absence of the same, this Court is not in a position to appreciate the submission that the petitioner is the successor or the legal heir of the deceased Sri P.Satyanarayana Raju. The family member certificate issued by the concerned 10 Tahsildar is also not filed to support the statement that the petitioner is the sole surviving legal heir of Smt.Bhimeswari. That apart, to the legal notice got issued by the petitioner vide Proceedings dated 20.07.2018, the petitioner's counsel was informed that various extents of plots in Block-A have been alienated to various departments by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, and that plot Nos.49 to 57, which includes plot Nos.54 and 55 claimed by the petitioner were alienated to the Tribal Museum. It is pertinent to mention here that, in fact, the Tribal Museum as per Ex.P13, was established on 20.03.1996. As per material filed by the petitioner, it would also appear that foundation for shopping complex was laid down on 21.01.2018 by the Integrated Tribal Development Agency(ITDA). In such circumstances, it would be highly difficult to identify the site/house plots as claimed by the petitioner, and the relief prayed for involves adjudication of disputed questions of fact and the same cannot be undertaken in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though reliance is placed on the report dated 22.12.2017 of the licensed surveyor, the same lends no support to the case of the petitioner and even as per the said report, the land in Plot Nos.54 & 55 in Block No.A is identified as Government land. In fact, in the year 2007, the petitioner approached the Concerned Tahsildar, by addressing a letter dated 08.10.2007(Ex.P.10), but he has not given any reasons as to why he 11 kept quiet for all these years till 2017, while his case is that he acquired rights in respect of above said plots on the death of his grandfather on 06.03.1980 and his mother on 28.05.1987. There are many missing threads, which raises a doubt about the right of the petitioner over the plots in question, even otherwise also. Be that as it may.
8. In one of the communications, i.e., unsigned letter marked as Ex.P8 dated 14.04.1976 stated to have been addressed by the petitioner's maternal grandfather, it is mentioned that he is preparing to construct house as per plans to be approved by the Town Planning Director, Hyderabad. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that as the approval of plans was not received, the construction of house was not taken up and that except making oral requests, no legal action was initiated against the concerned for not approving the plans. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner's grandfather or his mother did not pursue the legal remedies, even assuming that the plots in question were allotted to them. Even as seen from the Representation dated 16.10.2017, the petitioner is not aware of the subject matter plots till the date of the death of his mother i.e., 28.05.1997. If that be the case, no reasons are forthcoming as to why the petitioner kept quiet and not initiated any action, much less even after the death of his grandfather on 06.03.1980 till 2007. The 12 petitioner is not an uneducated, but working in Civil Court and cannot compare himself with illiterates or poor farmers. For the reasons best known to him, he remained in slumber and cannot expect any orders much less delivery of possession of the subject matter plots, the nature of which was changed multifold by afflux of time.
9. As noted earlier, the claim of the petitioner involves disputed questions of fact and therefore, no relief can be granted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Vidya Devi v. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 1 on which the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance, the appellant, an illiterate person and widow coming from rural area was deprived of her private property by the State without resorting to the procedure prescribed by Law. In the said case, there is no dispute about the expropriation of her property in 1967 without following due process of Law. However, in the present case, the petitioner's claim is that he is the successor of the subject matter plots and on the basis of material available on record, the same cannot be appreciated and further, no direction for delivery of vacant possession and physical possession merely on the basis of Surveyor's Report dated 22.12.2017 can be granted as prayed for. The other decision in Special Collector, AMRP and SLBC, Ramagiri, Nalgonda & others v. Kinnera 1 (2020) 2 SCC 569 13 Syam(W.A.No.677 of 2022) is also not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The said decision pertains to non-payment of compensation for acquisition of assigned lands at par with patta- holders and the learned Division Bench opined that when the State does not comply with the Law laid down in LAO-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer v. Mekala Pandu and others2, it is not open for it to defeat or deny a legitimate claim to compensation on the ground of delay and laches.
10. In the present case, the petitioner is not claiming any compensation, but delivery of possession of the subject matter plots.
11. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date: 29.12.2025 Pab/Lsp/BLV 2 2004 (2) ALD 451 14 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA W.P. No:40529 of 2018 DATE: 29.12.2025 Pab/lsp/BLV